getEnabledToolsRun first when a requested Postman MCP tool is unavailable to see which tools are enabled in full and minimal sets, then identify available alternatives.
IMPORTANT: Run this tool first when a requested tool is unavailable. Returns information about which tools are enabled in the full and minimal tool sets, helping you identify available alternatives.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: the response spans two distinct tool sets (full and minimal) and it should be invoked as a first step on failure. It does not detail the return shape, but the annotation bar is met.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the IMPORTANT trigger and then the return-value explanation. Well-sized with no wasted text, though the title and first clause are mildly redundant with each other.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does state that the response describes enabled tools across full and minimal sets. For a zero-parameter, read-only meta-tool this is adequately complete, though it leaves the exact response structure unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter syntax for the description to clarify.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource ('Get enabled tools') and clarifies what is returned: which tools are enabled in the full and minimal tool sets. This meta-tool is clearly distinguishable from the Postman domain siblings, which all operate on collections, specs, mocks, and workspaces.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides an explicit trigger condition: 'Run this tool first when a requested tool is unavailable.' This tells the agent exactly when to reach for it and why (to find alternatives). It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool or a when-not-to-use case, but the conditional guidance is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.